Slim Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Your last two posts on this thread have been shoddy attempts at trollingUntrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Come on guys! Please stop point scoring and talk facts. Please? I'm sure secrecy has many advantages over being open and whether people are just opposed to TJ's comments or not, then that to me, is a side issue, although I do wonder if there's more to this? (another time perhaps) Anyway, lets please keep on topic and discuss whether secrecy is just and ok, regardless of whichever meeting took place. For instance - Should Commissionaire's meetings be kept in secret and minutes are kept, but not shown to the public? Should MHK's or MLC's meetings be also kept in secret? OK, I'd say personally that they should be public viewing because they're acting on behalf of the tax payer, but is there other meetings that should definitely be kept private and confidential? (Straight answers please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 good post.................if its secret though how do we find out whether it is harmful or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The EU and the Euro were introduced by Bilderberg. That's two things which have been harmful to the democracy and national sovereignty of the nations concerned. If they were just having a chat, fine, but policy cannot be set im secret in a free and open society or else there would be no accountability; policymaking would become the arbitrary whims of the government of the day and power would be dettatched from Parliament and the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The EU and the Euro were introduced by Bilderberg. That's two things which have been harmful to the democracy and national sovereignty of the nations concerned. If they were just having a chat, fine, but policy cannot be set im secret in a free and open society or else there would be no accountability; policymaking would become the arbitrary whims of the government of the day and power would be dettatched from Parliament and the electorate. Source/evidence please? It's fairly common knowledge that the nazi sympathiser and European superstate advocate Prince Bernhard organised the first ever meeting. I'm sure there are other bits of info that TJ can source but I frankly can't be arsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 There is no evidence to suggest that European policy was set by these meetings. It may well have been influenced, but what the voters had for breakfast, their taxi drivers, their monthers, many other things may have influenced them too. It's typical conspiracy nutter 2+2=5 conclusion jumping bollocks, you lot do it over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 It's fairly common knowledge that the nazi sympathiser and European superstate advocate Prince Bernhard organised the first ever meeting. I'm sure there are other bits of info that TJ can source but I frankly can't be arsed. Do you mean this Prince Bernhard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe-Biesterfeld ? I would not deny his role in setting up the Bilderberg Group but it looks very much like his views on Nazi Germany quickly changed. Being an RAF Wing Commander flying fighter and bomber planes into combat against Germany is hardly expressing support for the Nazis. My own take on the Bilderberg Group is that too much is made of them. I don't like the idea of people meeting in private, but it happens so you just have to get over that. Jon Ronson has done some interesting work on them if anyone is interested, most of it can be readily found on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Out of these meetings must clearly come an agreed consensus on a lot of major issues that are enveloping the world at the time. That is probably the reason they meet; to speak, to discuss, to agree and if necessary circumnavigate the tedious illusion of democracy that exists in the respective parliaments around the world, which act as inconvenient roadblocks to agreed international policy. Why wouldn't the subject of a european union have been discussed, when it was the most high profile political change 'event' since the end of WWII. I don't agree with all these mad theories that there is some insane plot to take over the world espoused in these meetings (otherwise why would you invite Ed Balls) but clearly when lots of very important and powerful people meet in one building, from heads of state to private billionaires, behind closed doors with no media access or reporting then what they are discussing will most probably be of such a nature that it will shape international events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 & arouse public suspicion world wide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Do the people who believe the Bilderberg meetings should be held in secret also believe its very existence should be secret and not covered in the press? I believe we should at least be told it's happening, who's attending, and what, if any, outcomes have arisen from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Being an RAF Wing Commander flying fighter and bomber planes into combat against Germany is hardly expressing support for the Nazis. There is no need for a dichotomy here. You can be a Nazi (national socialist) and also be opposed to Hitler's version of national socialism. Prince Bernhard was an international socialist (globalist/internationalist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Do the people who believe the Bilderberg meetings should be held in secret also believe its very existence should be secret and not covered in the press? I believe we should at least be told it's happening, who's attending, and what, if any, outcomes have arisen from it.It is covered in the press, there's no prevention. They have a website where the date and location of the meetings are published, and the topics are published too. They have a press officer. The press aren't fussed, it's a secret meeting, there's very little to report on. The conspiracy nut jobs take this as a cover up, but why would the WSJ send over a team to cover a secret meeting? There's literally nothing to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The media were claiming it didn't even exist for decades. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The media were claiming it didn't even exist for decades. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.